Scott, you're absolutely right. I've been writing about this for years, so it's great to see you so passionate about it as well! I think a RIPE Labs post on these issues + the document you produced would be quite beneficial to the community.
Best, -Michael On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:55 PM J Scott Marcus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks to both of you for a careful and thoughtful read! Indeed, those two > paragraphs capture some of the most important points that I would most want > to highlight to RIPE. > > I have to say, when I started to look at the problem, I was surprised to > find that it entailed trade-offs far more complex than I would have guessed. > > I would also offer these bits: > > When one considers product sustainability, one must reflect on effects > over the entire lifetime of the product: not only over its period of usage > (the part that we mainly see as consumers), but also over its period of > production, and its end of life period (typical characterised by disposal > or by some form of recycling or re-use), as depicted in Figure 2. > Figure 2: The typical product life cycle > > Source: Bruegel > When a product wears out or is discarded for some other reason ..., it > typically needs to be replaced. Extending the lifetime of a product tends > to reduce the frequency with which goods of a given class need to be > replaced. This results in reduced consumption of materials and energy that > would otherwise go into production, which is environmentally positive. > If goods last longer, then they are less often disposed of, which likewise > tends to be positive. There are various forms of recycling, remanufacturing > and re-use that can serve to mitigate the cost of end of life, but reducing > the frequency with which products go to end of life tends to be even > better. Extending product lifetimes consequently tends to be positive for > the environment in the end of life phase as well. > The impact of extended lifetimes during the usage phase is not necessarily > environmentally positive – in fact, it can often be negative for the > environment. Products such as automobiles and washing machines are becoming > more efficient over time. Driving a given number of kilometres with a > newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle generates less greenhouse gas (GHG) than > driving the same number of kilometres with an older, less fuel-efficient > vehicle. When we extend the lifetime of these products, it means that > older, less efficient products stay in service longer, consuming more > energy and therefore generating more GHGs. > Practical assessments as to whether there is a public policy rationale for > prolonging product lifetime consequently need to carefully weigh a > trade-off: Do the environmental gains during the production and end of life > phases outweigh possible environmental costs during the usage phase for > this particular product at this point in time? > > > And this: > > It is easy to say that all batteries (and screens) should be replaceable, > but there are legitimate reasons to prefer non-replaceable components, some > of which also indirectly benefit consumers. User-replaceable batteries are > not the only way to ensure that the phone can be used for its full > potential lifetime. Other solutions are possible, and are to some extent > being implemented. > > With best regards, > Scott > > > On 02/09/2020 15:18, Michael J. Oghia wrote: > > Good points Michael, and that is also why I argue > <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/to-green-the-internet-we-need-ripe> > the RIPE community should take an explicit stance on the Right to Repair. > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> J Scott Marcus <[email protected]> wrote: >> > You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study of mine >> on behalf >> > of the European Parliament. >> >> > J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How can the >> EU product >> > safety and compliance framework help promote product durability and >> tackle >> > planned obsolescence, foster the production of more sustainable >> products, and >> > achieve more transparent supply chains for consumers?”, study for >> the IMCO >> > Committee of the European Parliament. >> > >> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf >> >> For the rest who did not read it yet: >> >> "Some users always want to have the latest technology, but there is good >> reason to believe that a great manyof these mobile devices are replaced >> (1) >> because the battery has died, and cannot be replaced by the user; or (2) >> because the screen has cracked, and cannot be replaced by the user, or (3) >> because the manufacturer no longer is willing or able to support the >> software. " >> >> with the caution that: >> >> "These same considerations hint at reasons why any prolongation of product >> lifetime for passenger vehicles – a potential initiative which, >> interestingly, is not visible in the Circular Economy Action Plan – might >> prove to be counter-productive at this particular point in time. Any >> prolongation of the lifetime of existing vehicles risks a slight delay in >> the >> take-up of new electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, thus potential >> delaying a technology evolution that produces benefits of its own. " >> >> -- >> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh >> networks [ >> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT >> architect [ >> ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on >> rails [ >> >>
_______________________________________________ connect-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg
